Mueller: Trump Could Be Charged with Obstruction of Justice After Leaving Office

That wasn't what I said, once again. This is getting pathetic, man. Just let it go.

 

Trump said she should be in jail.

What is he waiting for to start proceedings against her?

 

Mueller:
Applying the obstruction statutes to the President’s official conduct would involve determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

Mueller:
“Acting ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of § 1512(c)(2) means acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding

Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Where did Mueller, with a concrete demonstration, determine as a factual matter Trump acted with corrupt intent?

 

I'm guessing under political correctness, crooked Hillary is like an illegal alien and is one of the protected groups.

 

Oh please do

The D's seem to have boiled Volume 2 down to the top 5 examples, of which my current favorite is Section I - The President orders McGahn to deny that the President tried to fire the Special Counsel



Fire away!!

 

Justice Department reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-department-reopens-hillary-clinton-email-investigation

 

good news, I say we have to charge him them, let him prove in court he did not obstruct - no one is above the law

 

The problem with that (which both sides pointed out) is that the Supreme Court shut down Mueller's version of "obstruction" when his colleague's (prosecutors under him) used the exact same theory of Obstruction in their case, and it was over turned.

So the Democrats are thinking "okay, if we decide that he should be charged, and he beats it...how does that help us in 2020?".

I feel like many Democrats don't think about the future, on this forum.

 

absent the DOJ opinion not to charge a sitting President, I think we all know he would of been charged

 

I think republicans don't think about the future on this forum, letting a President get away they what Trump has done, means other Presidents in the future can do the same

 

Remembering that...
....the President’s actions to serve political or policy interests would not qualify as corrupt. The President’s role as head of the government necessarily requires him to take into account political factors in making policy decisions that affect law-enforcement actions and proceedings. For instance, the President’s decision to curtail a law-enforcement investigation to avoid international friction would not implicate the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

... how is this concrete demonstration that Trump acted with corrupt intent -- an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”?

 

Cite for this? I'd like to read.

 

As pointed out, the people who have been charged in Trump's campaign are not charged for offenses related to Russia and Obstruction. One was arrested for a licensing violation...

The problem you have, is this:

1. Mueller's OWN interpretation of obstruction as he outlined in his report (which ended up failing for his colleague's by the actions of the Supreme Court)
2. There's still no evidence that ANYONE has presented that connect Trump to Russian obstruction- ESPECIALLY since Russia meddled in both Trump and Hillary's affairs.

This testimony is worse for you poor Democrats than it is Trump. However, I'm guessing it gives you "hope". lol

 

McClinton (spelling) questioning. Once it's broken down on youtube so we don't have to go through hours just to get to it, I'll cite the exact text.

 

It's not concrete demonstration, but it would likely be enough to establish intent for the purposes of an indictment...

Avoid international friction?? That's a hoot, man...

 

So what did Trump "get away with"? Thwarting Democrat's witch hunt? Avoiding impeachment from a House that can not even get 25% of members behind it?

You should look at the other side of the coin. If Democrats can initiate an investigation into a sitting Republican President with so little to go on...and then cry "obstruction" on charges that were proven to have no merit, the Republicans can do the same in the future against Democrat Presidents. Personally, I tire of these "gotcha" games being played by both sides of the political aisle.

 

Mueller also said finding if the Steele dossier was apart of Russian misinformation was not in his purview as special counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election lol. This is a bust for Democrats

 

Absent a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent, there can be no obstruction; Mueller did not make a factual determination of such intent.
The President’s actions to serve -political- or -policy- interests would not qualify as corrupt.

 

lol... Democrats are on perpetual Fail Mode.

How Mueller doesn't know about Fusion GPS tells us all how political, inept, and full of fail this all was for the Leftist/Democrats.

 

Sure.

1. McGahn doesn't have the authority to fire the special counsel, so even if Trump ordered McGahn to fire the SC, there was never a risk of it happening
2. Even if Trump fired the SC, it would come via the authority of the AG, or in this case the DAG.
3. We know that didn't happen, because he wasn't fired and the DAG didn't resign in refusing the request to remove the AG.
4. There is no documentation that shows Trump ordered the SC to be fired, to McGahn or anyone else, so no evidence exists of this claim. If there was, it would be in the report.
5. Even if the DAG fired Mueller at Trump's request, the act itself would not be obstruction.

Since the POTUS cannot fire the SC directly, the AG would have to agree with the removal process, therefore even if he were fired the decision would belong to the AG.

Moreover, firing the SC would not affect the investigation, as another SC could be appointed.

Removing one SC does not jeopardize an investigation initiated by the AG any more than removing a lawyer from any DOJ case "obstructs justice".

You have nothing.

 

If they thought about the future, they wouldn't be Democrats.

 

He doesn't seem to be very forth coming about the process

 

And he could make that case at trial....

 

I have Don McGahn...... one day I assume....

 

Let's hope the left is stupid enough to continue pursuing this line of stupidity.